Windows 9 will be for rent

On 05/06/2014 12:44 AM, Paul wrote:
...winston wrote:

Both illustrate the problem with media attempting to predict and
usenet posts extracting content to substantiate a post title.

No matter what the possible outcomes of the baking operation
might be, we know the cake will use this for its ingredients.
This will help predict what they'll do.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201203-201405

If Microsoft were to go with an entirely "walled garden",
which insures future revenue growth, will developers
write Metro applications for an OS with a 7% market share ?
That's the question. They're more likely to write applications
for Windows 7, at 50.5%.

Microsoft has lots of money in the bank, and can make
a lot of fumbles if it wants. And if it wants to
pursue only smart phone and tablets, that's a decision
they could easily make if they want. It might require
slimming down the company a bit though. That's perhaps
the part they can't come to terms with. But that's how
high tech companies work - they have boom and bust
cycles. And if you look at Google's strategy ("dabble
in everything"), you see a possible recipe to smooth
out those bumps in the road. But many traditional
companies are uncomfortable doing such things,
not knowing how to manage or foster them.

Paul

You mean like Novell that had lots of cash, eventually went bust and
bought out?

--
Socialist-statism corruption is a great idea so long as the credit is
good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those
that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing but
unemployment, debt and discontentment.

On 05/06/2014 3:34 PM, John Doe wrote:
Paul nospam needed.com wrote:

And if it wants to pursue only smart phone and tablets, that's a
decision they could easily make if they want. It might require
slimming down the company a bit though.

Microsoft competing with Google and Apple for tablet supremacy
would be the first real personal computer competition and it would
be awesome.


Correctly so, no one is talking Microsoft seriously in the phone and
tablet markets.

Biggest problem is it takes more CPU, more battery and more storage just
to run the OS. This drives up a comparable MS solution to twice that of
Android.

And if you are going to apy so much, why not get a superior Apple
device? (Apples run BSD inside, another UNIX variant like Linux).

Reality is MS is a non-player. Sure, they will get some zealots but
will never be #1.


--
Socialist-statism corruption is a great idea so long as the credit is
good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those
that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing but
unemployment, debt and discontentment.

On 05/06/2014 11:43 PM, DK wrote:
In article , "one" wrote:
http://www.techradar.com/news/softwa...9-release-date
-news-and-rumours-1029245

What the collective has heard exactly is that a prototype version is in the
works in which a barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free.
For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a
subscription.

According to the leaker group, the core of Windows 9 will live in the given
system's BIOS, while the rest of the OS will reside in the cloud, ready for
picking via various apps and services. (Exactly how much of the standard
Windows functions would be left out is what's worrying about this rumor.)

Okay then. In about 5 years, when my XP becomes obsolete, I will
finally stop dual booting and switch full time to Linux. None of that crap
is worth learning how to deal with another round of MS inanities.

DK

Switch to Linux now, then create a XP virtual system with VirtuaBox.

In fact, that is how I tested Win 8.1, downloaded the ISO, mounted it
not even creating a CD, loaded it in the VirtualBox and tested it. When
finished, no re-install needed, just deleted the VM.

Even run Linux as a VM, as its as easy as a copy to a USD drive to back
it up.

--
Socialist-statism corruption is a great idea so long as the credit is
good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those
that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing but
unemployment, debt and discontentment.

On 06/06/2014 5:48 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per one:
barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free.
For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a
subscription.

The Linux people must be grinning from ear-to-ear.

Yep, no more M$ tax.


--
Socialist-statism corruption is a great idea so long as the credit is
good and other people pay for it. When the credit runs out and those
that pay for it leave, they can all share having nothing but
unemployment, debt and discontentment.

On 6/13/2014 6:59 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 06/06/2014 5:48 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per one:
barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free.
For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a
subscription.

The Linux people must be grinning from ear-to-ear.

Yep, no more M$ tax.


Do you actually believe MS is stupid enough to try to make Window 9, a
system where you rent the components?

They are still suffering from the Windows 8 touch screen fiasco.

Windows 9 will be a system to bring back all the Windows XP and other
users they have lost.

On 6/5/2014 6:17 AM, one wrote:
http://www.techradar.com/news/softwa...umours-1029245


What the collective has heard exactly is that a prototype version is in
the works in which a barebones version of Windows 9 will be available
for free. For additional functionality, users would have to pay up
through a subscription.

According to the leaker group, the core of Windows 9 will live in the
given system's BIOS, while the rest of the OS will reside in the cloud,
ready for picking via various apps and services. (Exactly how much of
the standard Windows functions would be left out is what's worrying
about this rumor.)

Excellent business plan and strategy developed by wishful thinking in an
ivory tower, considering Apple already offers free OS upgrade and Linux
has always been free, and that desktop/notebook computer sales are
continue dropping.

It would take business more time to leave MS ecosystems because there
are more involved than front-end/client-side OS, but no sane consumer
will want to pay monthly fee for an OS for which they don't give rats
ass in the first place, other than, of course, the blinded royalists.

They are helping competitors to build up business cases for why using MS
solutions is a sucker's decision. LOL.

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:39:58 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

barebones version of Windows 9 will be available for free.
For additional functionality, users would have to pay up through a
subscription.

The Linux people must be grinning from ear-to-ear.

Yep, no more M$ tax.


Do you actually believe MS is stupid enough to try to make Window 9, a
system where you rent the components?

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,
so we have to regard it as a serious possibility that the next version
could be even more stupid.

They are still suffering from the Windows 8 touch screen fiasco.

Windows 9 will be a system to bring back all the Windows XP and other
users they have lost.

Considering the operating system to which some of those XP users will
have been lost, Microsoft will have a tough job to compete on price.
In fact, having been accustomed to using their near monopoly status
just to produce whatever they want, they may have trouble getting to
grips with the concept of competing at all. It'll be interesting.

Rod.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:12:52 +0800, xfile wrote:

It would take business more time to leave MS ecosystems because there
are more involved than front-end/client-side OS, but no sane consumer
will want to pay monthly fee for an OS for which they don't give rats
ass in the first place, other than, of course, the blinded royalists.

People who buy equipment for big businesses are buying it with other
people's money, so they'll always buy safe, rather than buy sensible.
That's why nothing will change fast, if at all.

Rod.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.


It's entirely optional... after a lot of work.

You have to *carefully* change the mapping of files
to applications, to prevent Metro applications from
opening files on you. If a person did not know how
to "get out of a Metro App" in Windows 8.0 for example,
for a person preparing their machine, it would be
a mine field adjusting the machine so that Metro
would not hop up and bite them on the ass.

I'm not aware of any single button that disables
Metro and makes it go away. It's still there, lurking...
Waiting for one wrong move in terms of configuration,
and out it comes.

The one good thing Win8.1 U1 has going for it,
is at last there is an "X" at the top right of
my Metro Apps. So I don't have to Alt-F4
any more. Having that as a hint, is a great
help to new users - especially a user just
opening up their brand new PC.

The Metro App is the future of the Microsoft business
plan, so I can't see them "giving up without a fight".

Paul

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

No, not "entirely" optional, but mostly optional. If it were entirely
optional, a user would be able to use just one interface or the other,
rather than a mix of the two. I would like to be able to use only the
desktop interface, but I can't.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

IMHO, that's a big flaw, but by far not the biggest. Compared to Windows 7,
I can only think of a few very minor things that Microsoft did right, where
right means better, such as the improved progress meter when copying or
moving files in Windows Explorer, or the improved Performance tab in Task
Manager. Speaking of Task Manager, however, they completely screwed it up in
other ways. When my system is under duress, I sometimes can't even load Task
Manager, or if it's already running it'll go to a Not Responding state.
That's not very useful, and it's a completely different and inferior
behavior to previous versions of Windows. That's just the tip of the
iceberg, though. When I'm logging onto Win 8, I type my password, then I
click the password field to give it focus, and then I type my password
again. In previous Windows versions, when you're presented with the logon
password screen, the password field would already have focus. A small thing,
to be sure, and it doesn't happen all of the time, but there are dozens of
these small irritants scattered liberally about.

Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

No, not "entirely" optional, but mostly optional. If it were entirely
optional, a user would be able to use just one interface or the other,
rather than a mix of the two. I would like to be able to use only the
desktop interface, but I can't.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

IMHO, that's a big flaw, but by far not the biggest. Compared to Windows 7,
I can only think of a few very minor things that Microsoft did right, where
right means better, such as the improved progress meter when copying or
moving files in Windows Explorer, or the improved Performance tab in Task
Manager. Speaking of Task Manager, however, they completely screwed it up in
other ways. When my system is under duress, I sometimes can't even load Task
Manager, or if it's already running it'll go to a Not Responding state.
That's not very useful, and it's a completely different and inferior
behavior to previous versions of Windows. That's just the tip of the
iceberg, though. When I'm logging onto Win 8, I type my password, then I
click the password field to give it focus, and then I type my password
again. In previous Windows versions, when you're presented with the logon
password screen, the password field would already have focus. A small thing,
to be sure, and it doesn't happen all of the time, but there are dozens of
these small irritants scattered liberally about.


I think MS wants to go mobile and into the cloud and they are in the
caboose of that train. This is an opportunity for Linux but I doubt they
can provide what corporate Windows users want, especially Office.

--
Alias

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

The other option in Windows 8 is a desktop with no Start button, and
in Windows 8.1 a Start button that takes you straight back to Metro.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

Yes, that and making the difficult one the default, and making the
easy one difficult, requiring 3rd party add-on software to restore a
Start button with anything resembling the behaviour that almost the
entire computing world has been familiar with for nearly 2 decades.

Apart from that, it's not too bad.

Rod.

On 06/14/2014 11:50 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:34:35 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

No, not "entirely" optional, but mostly optional. If it were entirely
optional, a user would be able to use just one interface or the other,
rather than a mix of the two. I would like to be able to use only the
desktop interface, but I can't.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.

IMHO, that's a big flaw, but by far not the biggest. Compared to Windows 7,
I can only think of a few very minor things that Microsoft did right, where
right means better, such as the improved progress meter when copying or
moving files in Windows Explorer, or the improved Performance tab in Task
Manager. Speaking of Task Manager, however, they completely screwed it up in
other ways. When my system is under duress, I sometimes can't even load Task
Manager, or if it's already running it'll go to a Not Responding state.
That's not very useful, and it's a completely different and inferior
behavior to previous versions of Windows. That's just the tip of the
iceberg, though. When I'm logging onto Win 8, I type my password, then I
click the password field to give it focus, and then I type my password
again. In previous Windows versions, when you're presented with the logon
password screen, the password field would already have focus. A small thing,
to be sure, and it doesn't happen all of the time, but there are dozens of
these small irritants scattered liberally about.


In 8.1 if you set it up right you never have to see Metro or it's apps.

--
Caver1

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:30:37 -0400, Paul wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:47:29 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

Well, they were stupid enough to give us Windows 8, a system which
abandoned just about every main feature that anybody could recognise,


Only if you use the Metro/Modern interface, which is entirely
optional.

As far as I'm concerned, what Microsoft did wrong is not make it at
all clear that Windows 8 has two interfaces, and you can use either or
both.


It's entirely optional... after a lot of work.



Not in my experience.